This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Their idea was to invade and occupy indefinitely, and not just Iraq but any place else they found troublesome.

President Truman obviously had a similar idea when he invaded the Korean peninsula in the summer of 1950. U.S. troops are still there.

So, when the invasion was being discussed, back before the war, why didn't they just come out and say, "We expect to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future"?

Why didn't Truman just come out at the end of June, 1950, and say he expected U.S. troops to be in Korea for the foreseeable future? Maybe he was trying to deceive the American people. Or maybe he had no way to predict how events would play out.

The voters of this country were not ready to pour treasure and blood into a quagmire for decades to come, and the PNAC darned well knew it. They went ahead anyway, and with the predictable result.

With what predictable result? There was no reason to think Iraq would not have remained reasonably stable, as it was by the end of 2007, if a substantial U.S. force had been stationed there. What was predictable is that without any such force, chaos like we're seeing would result.

Obama took the fall, as he was the one in charge when things went to Hell.

It is because he is a weak, foolish President that he allowed things to go to Hell there. He is the one who withdrew all U.S. troops, contrary to what military leaders who had studied the problem had recommended. He then tried to cover his dereliction, as usual, by blaming President Bush, for negotiating an agreement that tied his hands. That is nonsense. Status-of-forces agreements can be renegotiated, and the U.S. could have insisted on keeping a residual force there. Various South Korean governments from time to time demanded the U.S. withdraw its forces, too, but the U.S. never felt the need to comply with those demands. This President withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq to pimp for votes, without giving a damn what mayhem it would set loose there. The invasion of jihadists from Syria, which he sat by for more than a year and did nothing to stop, is entirely his fault.

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Oh, sure, if the PNAC had their way, we'd have left plenty of troops in Iraq, regardless of any agreements we may have had with the government of that nation. Their idea was to invade and occupy indefinitely, and not just Iraq but any place else they found troublesome.

It wsn't just PNAC "having their way", the military, the CIA and the previous administration all felt, and indeed assumed, that troops would remain. the debate seemed to be how many.

So, when the invasion was being discussed, back before the war, why didn't they just come out and say, "We expect to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future"? That was the truth. What we heard was that it would be six months or less.

I\m not sure what this "six months or less" means. Was it the length of the war? When Democracy would take over? The trial Of Saddam? What are you referring to and who made that prediction?

The voters of this country were not ready to pour treasure and blood into a quagmire for decades to come, and the PNAC darned well knew it. They went ahead anyway, and with the predictable result. Obama took the fall, as he was the one in charge when things went to Hell.

They had already poured treasure and blood and the fatalities in 2011 including accidents, were 55. That\s why Obama called Iraq "Stable", and it was. But to maintain stability troops needed to remain, as everyone outside Obama's inner circle was saying.

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

President Truman obviously had a similar idea when he invaded the Korean peninsula in the summer of 1950. U.S. troops are still there.

Yes, they are.

How many more countries can we continue to afford to send troops to for 60 years or more? We already have troops posted all over the world.

Originally Posted by matchlight

Why didn't Truman just come out at the end of June, 1950, and say he expected U.S. troops to be in Korea for the foreseeable future? Maybe he was trying to deceive the American people. Or maybe he had no way to predict how events would play out.

Maybe. I'm not sure. We did know by 2011 that Korea would require a US presence indefinitely. Did we learn from the past? Apparently not.

Moreover, in 1950 we were dealing with an American public fresh from victory in WWII. In 2011, we had a public that still remembered the defeat in Vietnam. No one wanted to repeat that, and yet we did.

Originally Posted by matchlight

With what predictable result? There was no reason to think Iraq would not have remained reasonably stable, as it was by the end of 2007, if a substantial U.S. force had been stationed there. What was predictable is that without any such force, chaos like we're seeing would result.

Yes, that was what was predictable: Without a substantial US force, chaos would result. No one said that when the PNAC was agitating for the war they wanted. What we heard was how the war would be over in a matter of weeks or months at the most.

No one said that chaos would result if and when the troop withdrawals negotiated in 2007 were carried out, either. If it had been acknowledged, then the withdrawal schedule should have been quite different.

Originally Posted by matchlight

It is because he is a weak, foolish President that he allowed things to go to Hell there. He is the one who withdrew all U.S. troops, contrary to what military leaders who had studied the problem had recommended. He then tried to cover his dereliction, as usual, by blaming President Bush, for negotiating an agreement that tied his hands. That is nonsense. Status-of-forces agreements can be renegotiated, and the U.S. could have insisted on keeping a residual force there. Various South Korean governments from time to time demanded the U.S. withdraw its forces, too, but the U.S. never felt the need to comply with those demands. This President withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq to pimp for votes, without giving a damn what mayhem it would set loose there. The invasion of jihadists from Syria, which he sat by for more than a year and did nothing to stop, is entirely his fault.

and if that weak foolish president had reneged on the troop withdrawal agreement, he would have been lambasted for keeping the war going by his detractors. There was no right decision to be made at that time.

The only right decision would have been to have stayed out of Iraq to begin with.

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around for the cluster(bleep!) that is the war in Iraq. If you want to argue that honoring the troop withdrawal plan was a bad idea, that is an easy one to win. Sure, we could have, maybe should have, kept troops in Iraq indefinitely despite the political attacks that would have followed. In fact, as you said, that would have been the only way to have prevented the descent into chaos.

So, next time we decide to go and invade a country we don't like, let's be sure to make it clearly understood that trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives will be poured into the effort and that it will go on for many decades, long after the architects of the invasion are out of the public eye. Let's raise the money to pay for the war as we go along as well, and so not add to the debt. Let's have a draft, so the same people don't have to keep going back for tour after tour of duty. If the country is ready to do all that, then we're ready to start a war. If not, then let's not.

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Originally Posted by Grant

It wsn't just PNAC "having their way", the military, the CIA and the previous administration all felt, and indeed assumed, that troops would remain. the debate seemed to be how many.
I\m not sure what this "six months or less" means. Was it the length of the war? When Democracy would take over? The trial Of Saddam? What are you referring to and who made that prediction?They had already poured treasure and blood and the fatalities in 2011 including accidents, were 55. That\s why Obama called Iraq "Stable", and it was. But to maintain stability troops needed to remain, as everyone outside Obama's inner circle was saying.
So what? They don't really matter anyway.

They no longer matter, that's a fact. They did matter when the decision to invade Iraq was made, and the results of that decision still matter quite a lot.

In fact the Iraqi forces were defeated rather quickly, less than six months for sure. The rest of the time was fighting Islamists, most of whom came from elsewhere, and were attacking the Iraqi civilians. It took a few more years to finally achieve the 2011 stability.

I recall Rumsfeld saying that at the time and how unwise it was to make any predictions of this sort. Others were talking 'quagmire', of course, and just carpet bombing the entire country. Six months was not US policy.

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Originally Posted by Grant

In fact the Iraqi forces were defeated rather quickly, less than six months for sure. The rest of the time was fighting Islamists, most of whom came from elsewhere, and were attacking the Iraqi civilians. It took a few more years to finally achieve the 2011 stability.

I recall Rumsfeld saying that at the time and how unwise it was to make any predictions of this sort. Others were talking 'quagmire', of course, and just carpet bombing the entire country. Six months was not US policy.

No, obviously it wasn't US policy, but simply a political position.

It seems that those talking "quagmire" were correct.

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Yes, they are. How many more countries can we continue to afford to send troops to for 60 years or more? We already have tr?oops posted all over the world.

U.S. land, air, and sea forces must be based somewhere. There is no obvious advantage to basing them all in or near the U.S., and many advantages to basing them near parts of the world where U.S. interests are most likely to be threatened.

Moreover, in 1950 we were dealing with an American public fresh from victory in WWII. In 2011, we had a public that still remembered the defeat in Vietnam. No one wanted to repeat that, and yet we did.

Iraq had been largely stabilized by the end of 2007--in fact President Pinocchio tried to steal the credit for that achievement. It was exactly to prevent a defeat that his military experts told him a substantial U.S. force should remain behind. But in order to pimp for votes, he ignored them and paved the way for the catastrophe we are seeing.

What we heard was how the war would be over in a matter of weeks or months at the most.

You should speak for yourself. I never imagined a war on that scale would be quick. It was clear it would not take long to defeat Iraq's forces, and it did not. But only a fool would have imagined that a stable democracy would spring up the moment Hussein's regime had been ousted.

No one said that chaos would result if and when the troop withdrawals negotiated in 2007 were carried out, either. If it had been acknowledged, the wn the withdrawal schedule should have been quite different.

What prompted military experts to advise that the U.S. leave a substantial force in Iraq, if not concern that otherwise, chaos would result? The person who failed to acknowledge that would very likely happen was the Commander-in-Chief, Mr. Barack Obama.

and if that weak foolish president had reneged on the troop withdrawal agreement, he would have been lambasted for keeping the war going by his detractors. There was no right decision to be made at that time.

Not only is Mr. Obama weak and foolish, he is also a damned liar who resents the very country whose interests he swore to uphold. He is a disgrace to the United States, as more and more Americans, however late in the game, seem finally to be realizing.

The only right decision would have been to have stayed out of Iraq to begin with.

Really? And what secret information do you have that shows Saddam Hussein had nothing but peaceful intentions toward the U.S.? After the 1991 war, international inspections had proven that his regime had not only produced mustard, phosgene, sarin, and other chemical agents, but had also learned how to prepare anthrax as a weapon. They presided over and documented the destruction of those materials.

By 2002, though, it had been four years since Hussein had kicked out the last of those inspectors. Did you think his benevolent and honest nature assured that he had done nothing to rebuild those capabilities, even though he'd had plenty of time and money to do it? What did you know in 2002, that all those fools and idiots in the intelligence services of every major nation did not? And why did every last prominent Democrat, having seen the very same intelligence as President Bush, agree that Iraq once again had those capabilities? Were they lying, or did they just lack your secret information?

Sure, we could have, maybe should have, kept troops in Iraq indefinitely despite the political attacks that would have followed.

There is no maybe about it, and no U.S. President should have cared two hoots in hell whether this or that Iraqi liked it. Too damn bad, if they didn't. International relations are not a popularity contest, and every President has the solemn duty to put the security interests of this country first.

So, next time we decide to go and invade a country we don't like

The claim that Mr. Bush or any other American wanted to send U.S. servicemen to war out of nothing but personal animosity toward Iraq or Saddam Hussein is a disgusting slander. Maybe you have some preternatural wisdom that would have made you certain the anthrax attacks that followed soon after 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, despite the fact it had reneged on the agreements it had made after being routed in the Gulf War, and despite the open belligerence it had continued to show toward this country, time and again, during the following decade.

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Originally Posted by matchlight

U.S. land, air, and sea forces must be based somewhere. There is no obvious advantage to basing them all in or near the U.S., and many advantages to basing them near parts of the world where U.S. interests are most likely to be threatened.

Iraq had been largely stabilized by the end of 2007--in fact President Pinocchio tried to steal the credit for that achievement. It was exactly to prevent a defeat that his military experts told him a substantial U.S. force should remain behind. But in order to pimp for votes, he ignored them and paved the way for the catastrophe we are seeing.

You should speak for yourself. I never imagined a war on that scale would be quick. It was clear it would not take long to defeat Iraq's forces, and it did not. But only a fool would have imagined that a stable democracy would spring up the moment Hussein's regime had been ousted.

What prompted military experts to advise that the U.S. leave a substantial force in Iraq, if not concern that otherwise, chaos would result? The person who failed to acknowledge that would very likely happen was the Commander-in-Chief, Mr. Barack Obama.

Not only is Mr. Obama weak and foolish, he is also a damned liar who resents the very country whose interests he swore to uphold. He is a disgrace to the United States, as more and more Americans, however late in the game, seem finally to be realizing.

Really? And what secret information do you have that shows Saddam Hussein had nothing but peaceful intentions toward the U.S.? After the 1991 war, international inspections had proven that his regime had not only produced mustard, phosgene, sarin, and other chemical agents, but had also learned how to prepare anthrax as a weapon. They presided over and documented the destruction of those materials.

By 2002, though, it had been four years since Hussein had kicked out the last of those inspectors. Did you think his benevolent and honest nature assured that he had done nothing to rebuild those capabilities, even though he'd had plenty of time and money to do it? What did you know in 2002, that all those fools and idiots in the intelligence services of every major nation did not? And why did every last prominent Democrat, having seen the very same intelligence as President Bush, agree that Iraq once again had those capabilities? Were they lying, or did they just lack your secret information?

There is no maybe about it, and no U.S. President should have cared two hoots in hell whether this or that Iraqi liked it. Too damn bad, if they didn't. International relations are not a popularity contest, and every President has the solemn duty to put the security interests of this country first.

The claim that Mr. Bush or any other American wanted to send U.S. servicemen to war out of nothing but personal animosity toward Iraq or Saddam Hussein is a disgusting slander. Maybe you have some preternatural wisdom that would have made you certain the anthrax attacks that followed soon after 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, despite the fact it had reneged on the agreements it had made after being routed in the Gulf War, and despite the open belligerence it had continued to show toward this country, time and again, during the following decade.

There is no need for "secret" knowledge. Iraq was not a threat to the United States, and everyone involved knew it. For one thing, your historical revision of Saddam Hussain having kicked the inspectors out four years before 2002 is way off.

U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.

This happened in 2003, not in 1998, and was a direct result of Bush's "ultimatum."

And the Americans who wanted to send US troops to Iraq, namely Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, PNAC members all, didn't want to make war out of "animosity," but out of a desire for power. Their plan backfired, as we now know, but the results of an unnecessary war continue to haunt us.

finally:

There is no maybe about it, and no U.S. President should have cared two hoots in hell whether this or that Iraqi liked it. Too damn bad, if they didn't. International relations are not a popularity contest, and every President has the solemn duty to put the security interests of this country first.

My statement:

Sure, we could have, maybe should have, kept troops in Iraq indefinitely despite the political attacks that would have followed.

didn't mean political attacks from Iraqis. Who cared about that? It was a reference to the political attacks that would have come mostly from the same people who now say we should have kept troops in Iraq indefinitely.

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Iraq was not a threat to the United States, and everyone involved knew it.

So you assert. But you don't have the vaguest idea what they knew, or didn't know. After the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax mailings soon afterwards, I think there was good reason to believe Hussein's regime was a threat to the United States. It's easy to make glib assertions with the benefit of hindsight. Not nearly so easy, when you're responsible for protecting 300-plus million people from foreign threats, and an unknown foreign enemy has just made the worst attack on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor, to dismiss the most likely suspect.

Iraq was known to have sponsored and used all sorts of terrorist groups, including Islamist ones. And it had never truly ended its war against the United States. By 9/11, there had been hundreds of incidents during the previous decade in which Iraq had threatened or even openly attacked U.S. and British aircraft patrolling there. Iraq had also more than once feinted further attacks on Kuwait. There had also been enough evidence it was helping Sudan make chemical and/or biological weapons, some of which might have fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, to prompt President Clinton to order a cruise missile attack on a factory near Khartoum.

For one thing, your historical revision of Saddam Hussain having kicked the inspectors out four years before 2002 is way off. This happened in 2003, not in 1998, and was a direct result of Bush's "ultimatum."

Any revision is yours. Your account of the 2002-2003 UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections conveniently leaves out crucial facts. It is true that hundreds of inspections were carried out during about four months. But it was clear Iraq was playing a game to deceive the inspectors, only showing them enough to pretend to be cooperating. On January 27 and February 14, 2003, they reported to the UN Security Council that although Iraq's cooperation had improved somewhat, it was still unsatisfactory. And on March 7, Hans Blix told the Security Council that Iraq had not complied with the obligations to disarm that UN resolutions imposed on it.